I take a different tack here. What we're saying is that independent members are members who can be by themselves or with another group that does not exceed 12 members. When they are 12, they are a party and they have chairs in the committees and do all their work at the committees.
In the setup we have right now, there may be eight or nine independent members. There are not enough of them to come together, and I don't think they have any coherent policy to come together. What we are offering them is a fair chance to make inputs into committee work, to make amendments on bills or finances, whatever we're dealing with.
This hasn't happened in past years. It has happened recently. It is a good idea. If you are a member of a party, you get a chance to be on a committee, you get a chance to make your motions, and they are voted on one way or another. Allowing independent members to do this means they can get their amendments in, and these can pass or not pass. It's no different from being part of a party. Later on, at the report stage, amendments can be put that are not basically identical to the ones presented in committee.
If parties can come up with amendments at the report stage, independent members can come up with amendments at the report stage. I don't see any difference. I think it's an advantage for independent members to be part of a committee and submit their amendments. Therefore, I support this concept.